Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.

I've seen people get frustrated because you won't respond to what they post refuting your statements, but change the wording somehow to try make yourself look correct. I've not seen anything that would qualify as personal attacks.

__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.

YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.

You will not acknowledge that you are off base by taking "could be" and changing it to "probably," not break camp with the team, and then extending that "probably" to missing the first month, and then defending your double construction by claiming that is what they originally said.

Stop digging a hole and then crying "personal attacks" when people point to the hole you're in.

You will not acknowledge that you are off base by taking "could be" and changing it to "probably," not break camp with the team, and then extending that "probably" to missing the first month, and then defending your double construction by claiming that is what they originally said.

Stop digging a hole and then crying "personal attacks" when people point to the hole you're in.

"COULD BE" isn't a reference in that piece to injury. It's a reference to 100% healthy. In the situation where Danks is 100% healthy, he still may not break camp. That doesn't even account for the chances of him not being 100%. So how likely now?

It was my own estimation. Based on what I've read. I could have read your article alone and come up with that estimation.

This isn't funny. You are purposefully antagonizing me.

So you admit you are basing the likely to miss the first month stuff on your personal feeling, not any article that actually states that claim. That is a different stance than you previously were taking, but at least we all know it's just your personal opinion.

Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blandman

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the ****

Now it's a personal vendetta? Sorry, but, uh...no. I hate to break it to you like this, but when you take extreme positions without backing up said positions, you invite the critique of said positions. It's not personal. Strictly business. You now say you're quoting articles that have been around all winter, but you can't post them because you can't keep tabs on them? For someone that has the statistical analysis of everything Prince Fielder eats on a daily basis (yes, that is hyperbole), I find it hard to believe that you can't do a search and link an article that backs your position. And the longer you hem and haw, the more you change the terminology, the less credible your position becomes.

As Nellie said, and he IMO is without reproach when it comes to determining personal attacks, nothing posted here qualifies.

__________________

A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson

Now it's a personal vendetta? Sorry, but, uh...no. I hate to break it to you like this, but when you take extreme positions without backing up said positions, you invite the critique of said positions. It's not personal. Strictly business. You now say you're quoting articles that have been around all winter, but you can't post them because you can't keep tabs on them? For someone that has the statistical analysis of everything Prince Fielder eats on a daily basis (yes, that is hyperbole), I find it hard to believe that you can't do a search and link an article that backs your position. And the longer you hem and haw, the more you change the terminology, the less credible your position becomes.

As Nellie said, and he IMO is without reproach when it comes to determining personal attacks, nothing posted here qualifies.

"COULD BE" isn't a reference in that piece to injury. It's a reference to 100% healthy. In the situation where Danks is 100% healthy, he still may not break camp. That doesn't even account for the chances of him not being 100%. So how likely now?

I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.

Keep digging. They said it "could be" that he won't break camp with the team, acknowledging a possibility. You said that means he probably won't, and then extended that to probably will miss the first month, and defend that position by claiming that's what the Sox said. That is NOT what they said, and no amount of semantic dancing on your part is going to change that.

So you admit you are basing the likely to miss the first month stuff on your personal feeling, not any article that actually states that claim. That is a different stance than you previously were taking, but at least we all know it's just your personal opinion.

I don't admit that at all. I admit making an educated guess based on articles, as I have expressed to you several times now. It is no different from my previous stance. Which is why you are trolling me.

Keep digging. They said it "could be" that he won't break camp with the team, acknowledging a possibility. You said that means he probably won't, and then extended that to probably will miss the first month, and defend that position by claiming that's what the Sox said. That is NOT what they said, and no amount of semantic dancing on your part is going to change that.